Save scumming

[HardRains]

Save. Try something. Fail. Load. Try again. Win.

 

How is P:E handling this? Is this even considered an issue?

 

I never cared for Diablo II's (any many games since) waypoint save but I can't think of anything better. Is it punishment enough not remembering to save before every major event?

 

 

 

[mur'phon]

Ironman mode works like this: you only have one save, and if you die, that save gets overwritten, so it's perma game over. It's optionall, and extremely harsh, but at least it prevents save scumming. Alternatively, you could make an agreement with a flatmate to do the dishes every time you reload.

[Tsuga C]

It's a single-player game, hence whether you save every 5 minutes or every 5 hours is no one's business but your own.  P:E isn't imposing any save limitations in Easy, Normal, or Hard modes, but there is some sort of Ironman option that only allows limited saving, if I remember correctly.

[Gfted1]

...is no one's business but your own.

The rest of the PE's revealed mechanics prove this to be untrue (healing, resting, inventory) but I believe you are correct about the saving.

[JFSOCC]

Is this even considered an issue?

It's been discussed a few times...

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61179-minimizing-save-scumming-or-is-it-too-much-of-a-hassle/

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/62201-i-need-ironman-mode-because-i-have-poor-impulse-control/

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/62221-solution-for-random-chance-events-and-reloads/

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/62518-saving-games/

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/62931-an-idea-regarding-restingstaminahealth/

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/62999-josh-sawyer-balance-and-utility/

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63687-limiting-rest-areas/

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63932-solving-the-rest-problem-limited-resting-or-respawning-enemies/

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63160-degenerate-gameplay/

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63954-resting-doesnt-work-ditch-it/

[PrimeJunta]

I believe the mechanics are designed not to encourage savegame abuse, though, at least for reasonably competent gamers.

[Quetzalcoatl]

Exercise restraint.

 

I do wonder what an RPG with an auto-save system (without being able to make saves yourself) would be like. 

[Gfted1]

I do wonder what an RPG with an auto-save system (without being able to make saves yourself) would be like.

Shadowrun Returns uses a checkpoint save system if you haven't tried it yet.

[Messier-31]

Save. Try something. Fail. Load. Try again. Win.

How is P:E handling this? Is this even considered an issue?

I never cared for Diablo II's (any many games since) waypoint save but I can't think of anything better. Is it punishment enough not remembering to save before every major event?

 

Given the fact that...

 

Ironman mode works like this: you only have one save, and if you die, that save gets overwritten, so it's perma game over. It's optionall, and extremely harsh, but at least it prevents save scumming. Alternatively, you could make an agreement with a flatmate to do the dishes every time you reload.

 

and...

 

It's a single-player game, hence whether you save every 5 minutes or every 5 hours is no one's business but your own.  P:E isn't imposing any save limitations in Easy, Normal, or Hard modes, but there is some sort of Ironman option that only allows limited saving, if I remember correctly.

 

I couldn't care less.

[Lephys]

The game's only job is to not encourage it, not to somehow prevent it. It's software. You're not going to prevent someone from doing what they want with it. If they get it, then use the game disc as a coaster instead of ever installing or playing it, no one's preventing that, either.

[mur'phon]

Well, to be fair, a save anywhere system is similar to free chocolate. For most it's great, but it's not unreasonable for those of us who know we'll abuse it to hope for mechanics that makes it harder/pointless.

[Karkarov]

Exercise restraint.

 

I do wonder what an RPG with an auto-save system (without being able to make saves yourself) would be like. 

Try the souls games, as in Demon's and Dark Souls.  You have no manual save and while you can't "permanently" die death can carry a lot of penalties and if you are unable to fulfill certain conditions you could find yourself out levels worth of exp.

[Lephys]

I'm not even sure there's really anything that makes it "harder." Just more troublesome, really. So, when you do that, no one says "thanks for deterring that action! 8D!", but instead, "OMG, why did you allow me to do this still, but make it a HUGE CHORE now?!"

 

For example, set save points. Some people will still just re-load the game, and play back through those 15 minutes of gameplay to get back to the point where they wish to change their dialogue choice. Plus, for people who aren't even trying to save-scum and can already control themselves, they play for 14 minutes, then die. Boom. Gotta re-do all that. Why? So that other people will have a tough time of save-scumming.

 

It's like lowering the speed limit because you hate it when people speed. Well, great, now the speeders are STILL going to speed (they'll just get worse tickets for it), and the law-abiders are going to get everywhere twice as slow. Everyone hates you, and nothing has changed.

 

So, *shrug*. Maybe they could put in a mode similar to Iron-Man, but in which you are simply restricted to one save file that doesn't esplode when you die? I don't think that's any kind of obligation, but then there'd be an option. Of course, you could simply say "that non-one-save-only mode option was like free chocolate... I couldn't resist."

 

Always restrict game saving. "That mod that someone made was SO easy to download and install! It's like free chocolate!"

 

People. Something's either possible, and you want to do it badly enough that you do it, or it's impossible, and you don't do it regardless of any amount of desire. Such is life.

[TrashMan]

It's a single-player game, hence whether you save every 5 minutes or every 5 hours is no one's business but your own.  P:E isn't imposing any save limitations in Easy, Normal, or Hard modes, but there is some sort of Ironman option that only allows limited saving, if I remember correctly.

 

Yes and no.

 

Mechanics in general - and save mechanics in particular - affect gameplay, the atmosphere and expereicne delivered.

If the developer wants to deliver a specific expereince, then limiting saves or enforcing a specific playstle is a valid option. Some might see it as restrictive, but there is no rule that the palyer gets to determine everything.

 

Imagine playing Amnesia, but with the player having an option to use guns by default - it ruins the atmospehre immediately.

[Sedrefilos]

Oh, man this conversation again...

wtf is save scumming anyway? Play as you like. Save whenever you like. Make up your own rules. But leave others to play as they want. "Save scumming"... jesus...

[Griebel]

 

I do wonder what an RPG with an auto-save system (without being able to make saves yourself) would be like.

Shadowrun Returns uses a checkpoint save system if you haven't tried it yet.

 

Shadowrun Returns is a nice enough game, but players consider the checkpoint saves to be one of the major faults. Once you proceed to the next level you can't redo your choices. One clusterf*ck and you may need to replay an entire level or be seriously gimped if the mission has multiple levels. Choose the wrong companions or bring the wrong consumables and at best: play the same level again and again until you succeed, or at worst: you need to restart the whole game.

[mur'phon]

Lephys: I'm not arguing in favor of a system that deters save scumming that others can't disable (or heck, care much about it in this game, I'll happily save scum in PE). A simple, only one save that dosen't explode mode would probably do the trick. To continue the chocolate example, I'm easily capable of not buying chocolate at the store, once I actually have it at home however...

[Gfted1]

Shadowrun Returns is a nice enough game, but players consider the checkpoint saves to be one of the major faults. Once you proceed to the next level you can't redo your choices. One clusterf*ck and you may need to replay an entire level or be seriously gimped if the mission has multiple levels. Choose the wrong companions or bring the wrong consumables and at best: play the same level again and again until you succeed, or at worst: you need to restart the whole game.

Agreed. In SRR case it was due to running out of money but it negatively impacted the game for me. Im pretty sure Sawyer said PE offers saving whenever you want but when compared to all the other disincentive mechanics I still hold my breath.

[Keyrock]

The game's only job is to not encourage it, not to somehow prevent it. It's software. You're not going to prevent someone from doing what they want with it. If they get it, then use the game disc as a coaster instead of ever installing or playing it, no one's preventing that, either.

Agreed.  If someone wants to save scum, that's their prerogative, it's not the designers' job to punish or prevent that, with the exception of Ironman mode, but that's a selectable option.  As long as the game doesn't force you to save scum (think early part of Baldur's Gate 1) then it's up to the individual playing whether they want to save scum or not.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Ahhh early BG1. Who didn't love the party being decimated by mooks with weak ranged weapons or a random wolf. I can't think of a better argument for starting at level 3 than BG1 early gameplay.

[motorizer]

 

 

I do wonder what an RPG with an auto-save system (without being able to make saves yourself) would be like.

Shadowrun Returns uses a checkpoint save system if you haven't tried it yet.

 

Shadowrun Returns is a nice enough game, but players consider the checkpoint saves to be one of the major faults. Once you proceed to the next level you can't redo your choices. One clusterf*ck and you may need to replay an entire level or be seriously gimped if the mission has multiple levels. Choose the wrong companions or bring the wrong consumables and at best: play the same level again and again until you succeed, or at worst: you need to restart the whole game.

 

Personally I'm fine with it... it's more fun to me to have to live with your choices and for them to mean something..... and for there to be a bit of tension in the game...

If you have to save scum then the game is too hard and the save scumming is an infinite lives cheat. (baldurs gate at level 1)... shadowrun was a bit on the easy side if anything..it would have been way too easy if you could save anywhere.

 

and what is the point of ever even having a fail condition to anything if you can just keep doing it again till you succeed? might as well play skyrim and never fail at anything....

Edited November 8, 2013 by motorizer

[ShadySands]

I hated it and the choices didn't matter in that game (Shadowrun Returns) anyway

Edited November 8, 2013 by ShadySands

[Lephys]

Agreed. In SRR case it was due to running out of money but it negatively impacted the game for me. Im pretty sure Sawyer said PE offers saving whenever you want but when compared to all the other disincentive mechanics I still hold my breath.

Biggest problem for me was having played for like an hour and 15 minutes, and needing to stop, pack up my laptop, and go somewhere, but not being able to save for the next 20 minutes (I'm a slowpoke when it comes to turn-based combat *points to avatar <<<<<<*, ).

 

That's the reason I can't really advocate limiting saving. Especially if the reason for it is to somehow deter or "prevent" you from reloading to alter the results of a given snippet of gameplay choices/happenings.

 

That's like punching everyone who walks into a store in the face, and saying "Well, anyone who walked in and was thinking about stealing something will now think twice about it."

 

The only reason for limiting saving is to deter people from doing what they could simply not-do in the first place, and what they could STILL do in a much more annoyed mood with limited save points.

[motorizer]

My favourite save system is actually the one on mount and blade, where it autosaves pretty much every time something happens, overwriting your previous save. I believe sui generis is planning something similar.

No save scumming there, and no having to go back half an hour because you had to turn the computer off and go out.

It has to be impossible to get yourself into an unwinnable situation though for that to work. and the save game system has to be very robust.

[teknoman2]

there seems to be some confusion about the nature of save scumming. save scumming is playing in a hardcore mode with a single save file that gets deleted if you die, and making copies of that file so you dont lose it in case of death. saving anytime anywhere and reloading for whatever reason is totaly fine if the game allows it. the thing you can call scumming in this case, is if the game offers a way to resurect a lost party member, but to avoid wasting money or resourses on it, you just reload and replay the battle. if you reload to change a desision you made with something else, means you suck a being a role player, not that you cheated so its fine as well

in short, if you cannot stick to your guns while you play and reload to change the past, it's your fault for sucking at role play and not the game's. the devs have no reason to invent save systems that will not allow you to do it

Edited November 9, 2013 by teknoman2